# Chaotic Dynamics and Monte Carlo Modelling

## Abstract

In practice, i.e., as long as the initial conditions cannot be specified exactlty, the outcome of a chaotic dynamical system can only be specified in statistical terms. Evolution equations (e.g., the Fokker-Planck equation) for a distribution of test particles can then be formulated, and as an alternative to analytical, mostly approximate or idealized solutions one may simulate the problem using Monte Carlo techniques. Such simulations are a well-known tool in the study of completely chaotic many-body systems such as star clusters or planetary rings, where the sample of test particles can indeed be taken to represent a zandom set of true solutions according to Bowen’s shadowing lemma. In this sense the Monte Carlo modelling plays a role analogous to that of averaging or mapping in regular dynamics, i.e.: the exact dynamical system is replaced by a model overlooking the details of the short-term motion but yielding a good approximation to the long-term behaviour. By a further discretization of the problem the stochastic system can be modelled as a Markov chain. Both Monte Carlo simulations and Markov models have been used in cometary dynamics, and we review some examples from this work to illustrate the success as well as limitations of these stochastic modelling techniques. Lyapunov characteristic exponents and Kolmogorov entropy appear to be suitable tools for estimating the underlying stochasticity to which Monte Carlo simulations refer.

Chaotic dynamics plays an important role for many problems of stellar dynamics (the classical *N*-body problem) and celestial mechanics (the dynamics of planetary ring particles and comets). Actually since the initial conditions cannot be specified exactly and also since the precision of integration is finite, the chaoticity of an orbit will cause exponential divergence of the computed orbit from the “true” orbit. Hence the outcome of a chaotic dynamical system can only be specified in statistical terms, and therefore a Monte Carlo approach becomes relevant. Indeed for the study of the dynamical evolution of globular clusters such an approach was undertaken already in the 1960’s (see Hénon 1973).

## Keywords

Monte Carlo Simulation Globular Cluster Semimajor Axis Monte Carlo Modelling Oort Cloud## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Benettin, G., Froeschlé, C., Scheidecker, J.-P.: 1979, “Kolmogorov Entropy of Dynamical Systems with Increasing Number of Degrees of Freedom”,
*Phys. Rev. A***19**, 2454–2460MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bowen, R.: 1978, “On Axiom A Diffeomorphisms” CBMS Regional Conferences Series in
*Mathematics*, Vol**35**, MS Publications: ProvidenceMATHGoogle Scholar - Everhart, E.: 1977, “The Evolution of Comet Orbits as Perturbed by Uranus and Neptune”, in
*Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites*(ed. A.H. Delsemme ), Univ. Toledo Press, pp. 99–104Google Scholar - Froeschlé, C.: 1984,“ The Lyapunov Characteristic Exponents - Applications to Celestial Mechanics”,
*Celest. Mech.***34**, 95 - 115ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Froeschlé, C., Rickman, H.: 1980, “New Monte Carlo Simulations of the Orbital Evolution of Short-Period Comets and Comparison with Observations”,
*Astron. Astrophys.***82**, 183 - 194ADSGoogle Scholar - Froeschlé, C., Rickman, H.: 1981, “A Monte Carlo Investigation of Jovian Perturbations on Short-Period Comet Orbits”,
*Icarus***46**, 400 - 414ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Froeschlé, C., Rickman, H.: 1981, “A Monte Carlo Investigation of Jovian Perturbations on Short-Period Comet Orbits”,
*Icarus***46**, 400 - 414ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Froeschlé, C., Scheidecker, J.-P.: 1975, “Stochasticity of Dynamical Systems with Increasing Number of Degrees of Freedom;’
*Phys. Rev. A***12**, 2137 - 2143ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Heisler, J., Tremaine S.: 1986, “The Influence of the Galactic Tidal Field on the Oort Comet Cloud”,
*Icarus***65**, 13 - 26ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hénon, M.: 1973, “Collisional Dynamics in Spherical Stellar Systems”, in
*Dynamical Structure and Evolution of Stellar Systems*(eds. L. Martinet and M. Mayor ), Swiss Soc. of Astron. and Astrophys., pp. 183–260Google Scholar - Hénon, M., Heiles, C.: 1964, “The Applicability of the Third Integral of Motion; Some Numerical Experiments”,
*Astron. J.***69**73 - 79ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lago, B., Cazenave, A.: 1983, “Evolution oi: the Cometary Perihelion Distance in the Oort Cloud: Another Statistical Approach”,
*Icarus***53**, 68 - 83ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Petit, J.M., Hénon, M.: 1987, A Numerical Simulation of Planetary Rings. II. Monte Carlo Model,
*Astron. Astrophys.***188**, 198 - 205ADSMATHGoogle Scholar - Remy, F., Mignard, F.: 1985, “Dynamical Evolution of the Oort Cloud. I. A Monte Carlo Simulation”,
*Icarus***63**, 1 - 19ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rickman, H., Froeschlé, C.: 1979, “Orbital Evolution of Short-Period Comets Treated as a Markov Process”,
*Astron. J.***84**, 1910 - 1917ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rickman, H., Froeschlé, C.: 1983, “A Keplerian Method to Estimate Perturbations in the Restricted Three-Body Problem”,
*Moon and Planets***28**, 69 - 86ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rickman, H., Froeschlé, C.: 1983, “A Keplerian Method to Estimate Perturbations in the Restricted Three-Body Problem”,
*Moon and Planets***28**, 69 - 86ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rickman, H., Vaghi, S.: 1976, “A Monte Carlo Simulation of the Orbital Evolution of Comets in the Inner Planetary Region”,
*Astron. Astrophys.***51**, 327 - 342ADSGoogle Scholar - Weissman, P.R.: 1982, “Dynamical History of the Oort Cloud”, In
*Comets*(ed. L.L. Wilkening ), Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 637–658Google Scholar